ANU GUPTA,ROHINI, NEW DELHI vs. DCIT CIRCLE 34(1), CIVIC CENTRE, NEW DELHI
आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण
िदʟी पीठ “एस एम सी”, िदʟी
ŵी िवकास अव̾थी, Ɋाियक सद˟
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
DELHI BENCH “SMC”, DELHI
BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER
आअसं.3106/िदʟी/2025 (िन.व. 2017-18)
Anu Gupta,
62 A, Naharpur, Sector-7, Rohini,
New Delhi 110085
...... अपीलाथᱮ/Appellant
PAN: AUUPG-3868-N
बनाम Vs.
Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax,
Circle 34(1), Civic Centre, New Delhi 110002
..... ᮧितवादी/Respondent
अपीलाथŎ Ȫारा/Appellant by : None
ŮितवादीȪारा/Respondent by : Ms. Sudha Gupta, Sr. DR
सुनवाई कᳱ ितिथ/ Date of hearing
:
31/07/2025
घोषणा कᳱ ितिथ/ Date of pronouncement :
:
27/10/2025
आदेश/ORDER
PER VIKAS AWASTHY, JM:
This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [in short ‘the CIT(A)’] dated 18.11.2024, for Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The appeal is time barred by 98 days. The assessee has filed an application citing reasons causing delay in filing of appeal. After perusal of the same, I am satisfied that delay in filing of appeal is not intentional, the delay has been caused for the reasons stated in petition which appears to be bonafide. Thus, delay of 98
days in filing of appeal is condoned and appeal is admitted for decision on merits.
2
3. The solitary issue in this appeal by the assessee is addition of Rs.27,85,000/- on account of unexplained cash deposits in the bank account of the assessee during the period of demonetization. The assessee had filed return of income for AY 2017-18 declaring total income of Rs.20,68,650/-. During demonetization period, the assessee had deposited cash Rs.27,85,000/- in his bank account as under:-
Name of the Banks Cash Deposits
Syndicate Bank, Manesar Branch Rs.13,60,000/-
Syndicate Bank, Manesar Branch Rs.12,00,000/-
South India Bank, Manesar Gurgaon Rs.2,25,000/-
Total Rs.27,85,000/-
4. The assessee explained that out of Rs.13,60,000/- Rs.11,08,183/- was deposited from cash in hand and the remaining amount of Rs.3,50,000/- was received from one party. He further explained that Rs.12,00,000/- and Rs.2,00,000/- were deposited from cash in hand available with the assessee.
Since, no supporting documents were furnished by the assessee, the AO made addition of the entire amount as unexplained money u/s.69A r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act. Aggrieved by thesaid assessment order dated 30.12.2019, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The First Appellate Authority granted relief to the assessee to extent of Rs.2,25,000/- and made addition of the remaining amount of Rs.25,60,000/-.
5. Ms. Sudha Gupta, representing the department supported the impugned order and prayed dismissing appeal of the assessee.
3
6. Submissions made by ld. DR heard, orders of the authorities below examined. The assessee has explained the source of cash deposits as cash in hand and cash received from party. No documentary evidence to substantiate source of cash deposits have been filed by the assessee. In the absence of supporting documents, bald assertions of the assessee cannot be accepted.
7. I find that the AO has invoked provisions of section 115BBE of the Act. The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of SMILE Microfinance Ltd. vs. ACIT, WP
(MD) No.2078 of 2022 decided on 19.11.2024 has held that amendment to section 115BBE of the Act would come into effect from 01.04.2017 i.e. relevant to AY
2018-19 onwards. Thus, in the impugned assessment year un-amended provisions of section 115BBE of the Act would apply.
8. In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed.
Order pronounced in the open court on Monday the 27th day of October,
2025. (VIKAS AWASTHY)
᭠याियक सद᭭य/JUDICIAL MEMBER
िदʟी/Delhi, ᳰदनांक/Dated 27/10/2025
NV/-
ᮧितिलिप अᮕेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to :
1. अपीलाथᱮ/The Appellant ,
2. ᮧितवादी/ The Respondent.
3. The PCIT/CIT(A)
4. िवभागीय ᮧितिनिध, आय.अपी.अिध., िदʟी /DR, ITAT, िदʟी
5. गाडᭅ फाइल/Guard file.
4
BY ORDER,
////
(Asstt.